Background In view of the current upsurge of interest in, practice of, and research into, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) worldwide and locally, a survey was conducted to gauge the understanding, interest and knowledge of CAM amongst medical students in a local university. Methods A total of 555 first to fifth year medical students completed a questionnaire (54% response rate) designed to assess their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes to CAM in general and 16 common CAM therapies. Results Acupuncture was the best known therapy, with 57% claiming to know at least something about it. No students claimed they knew a lot about chiropractic, osteopathy, Ayuverdic medicine, homeopathy and naturopathy, and many had not ever heard of these therapies. Knowledge of commonly held beliefs about the 16 CAM modalities was generally poor, even for modalities which students claimed to know most about. A significant number of students had knowledge about CAM that was erroneous. Lack of scientific support was considered to be the main barrier to implementation of CAM. Attitudes to CAM were positive, with 92% believing that CAM includes ideas and methods from which conventional medicine can benefit, 86% wishing to know more about CAM and 91% stating that CAM would play an important role in their future medical practice. Conclusion As the public's use of various healing practices outside conventional medicine accelerates, ignorance about these practices by the country's future medical practitioners risks broadening the communication gap between the public and the profession that serves them. The majority of medical students recognise this risk and are keen to bridge this gap.
Background Data comparing outcomes in heart failure ( HF ) across Asia are limited. We examined regional variation in mortality among patients with HF enrolled in the ASIAN ‐HF (Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure) registry with separate analyses for those with reduced ejection fraction ( EF ; <40%) versus preserved EF (≥50%). Methods and Results The ASIAN ‐ HF registry is a prospective longitudinal study. Participants with symptomatic HF were recruited from 46 secondary care centers in 3 Asian regions: South Asia (India), Southeast Asia (Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore), and Northeast Asia (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China). Overall, 6480 patients aged >18 years with symptomatic HF were recruited (mean age: 61.6±13.3 years; 27% women; 81% with HF and reduced r EF ). The primary outcome was 1‐year all‐cause mortality. Striking regional variations in baseline characteristics and outcomes were observed. Regardless of HF type, Southeast Asians had the highest burden of comorbidities, particularly diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease, despite being younger than Northeast Asian participants. One‐year, crude, all‐cause mortality for the whole population was 9.6%, higher in patients with HF and reduced EF (10.6%) than in those with HF and preserved EF (5.4%). One‐year, all‐cause mortality was significantly higher in Southeast Asian patients (13.0%), compared with South Asian (7.5%) and Northeast Asian patients (7.4%; P <0.001). Well‐known predictors of death accounted for only 44.2% of the variation in risk of mortality. Conclusions This first multinational prospective study shows that the outcomes in Asian patients with both HF and reduced or preserved EF are poor overall and worst in Southeast Asian patients. Region‐specific risk factors and gaps in guideline‐directed therapy should be addressed to potentially improve outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration URL : https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT 01633398.
Aims This study aims to determine procedural characteristics, acute success rates, and medium-term outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing His bundle pacing (HBP); and learning curves of experienced electrophysiologists adopting HBP. Methods and results Consecutive HBP patients at three hospitals were recruited. Clinical characteristics, acute procedural details, and medium-term outcomes were extracted from electronic medical records. Two hundred and thirty-three patients [mean age 74.6 ± 10.1 years, 48% female, 68% narrow QRS, 71% normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 55.8% atrioventricular block] underwent HBP. Acute procedural success was 81.1% (mean procedural and fluoroscopic times of 105.5 ± 36.5 and 13.8 ± 9.3 min). Broad QRS was associated with lower HBP success (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.02). Fluoroscopic and procedural times decreased and plateaued after 30–40 cases per operator. Implant HBP threshold was 1.3 ± 0.7 V at 1.0 ± 0.2 ms and R wave was 5.0 ± 3.9 mV. During follow-up, loss of HBP occurred in a further 12.4% and 11.3% of patients experienced a ≥1 V increase in HBP threshold. Five (2.6%) patients required HBP revision for pacing difficulties. About 8.6% of patients had a >50% decrease in R wave but lead revision for sensing issues was not necessary. On an intention to treat basis, 56.7% of patients in whom HBP was attempted had persisting HBP capture and thresholds of <2 V. Conclusion Physicians adopting HBP should be cognizant of the learning curve and preferentially select non-dependent patients with normal QRS and LVEF, to minimize risk of lead revision. Further rises in HBP threshold may increase battery drain and need for reoperations, important considerations when choosing HBP for cardiac resynchronization therapy.
A greater propensity for reconnection was noted around the right sided PV segments in both the CF and non-CF groups. The explanation for this finding was related to greater catheter instability around the right sided veins. Further research is needed to explore the utility of a "real-time" composite indicator that includes RF energy, CF and catheter stability in predicting transmural lesion formation during catheter ablation.
Background Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (S‐ICDs) have been of great interest as an alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (TV‐ICDs). No meta‐analyses synthesizing data from high‐quality studies have yet been published. Methods and Results An electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials or propensity score–matched studies comparing S‐ICD against TV‐ICD in patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator indication. The primary outcomes were device‐related complications and lead‐related complications. Secondary outcomes were inappropriate shocks, appropriate shock, all‐cause mortality, and infection. All outcomes were pooled under random‐effects meta‐analyses and reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. Kaplan–Meier curves of device‐related complications were digitized to retrieve individual patient data and pooled under a 1‐stage meta‐analysis using Cox models to determine hazard ratios (HRs) of patients undergoing S‐ICD versus TV‐ICD. A total of 5 studies (2387 patients) were retrieved. S‐ICD had a similar rate of device‐related complications compared with TV‐ICD (RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.33–1.04]; P =0.070), but a significantly lower lead‐related complication rate (RR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07–0.29]; P <0.0001). The individual patient data–based 1‐stage stratified Cox model for device‐related complications across 4 studies yielded no significant difference (shared‐frailty HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.61–1.09]; P =0.167), but visual inspection of pooled Kaplan–Meier curves suggested a divergence favoring S‐ICD. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between both modalities. Conclusions S‐ICD is clinically superior to TV‐ICD in terms of lead‐related complications while demonstrating comparable efficacy and safety. For device‐related complications, S‐ICD may be beneficial over TV‐ICD in the long term. These indicate that S‐ICD is likely a suitable substitute for TV‐ICD in patients requiring implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation without a pacing indication.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.